r/dndmemes • u/alt266 • 2d ago
Mfw I trick people into playing other systems by calling it homebrew 5e
120
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
I like how Paizo updated and expanded upon D&D. Their original content after the 1e Core Rulebook, not so much. Sacred Geometry is the classic low-hanging fruit, but it did not surprise me after first reading the other stuff they came up with.
44
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
If we're gonna be fr, I think they probably should've just stopped making content after hybrid classes dropped. Even so, fear bloat aside, I'd say Paizo did a decent enough job making the game their own.
...but yeah sacred geometry is so fucking horrible
27
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
I do like some of the hybrid classes. Hunter is Ranger with a clear class fantasy.
33
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago edited 2d ago
Bloodrager is wild magic barbarian if it didn't suck, wapriest is paladin but fun, slayer is ALSO ranger with a class fantasy.
The issue with pf1 is that they dropped peak and had nowhere to go but down afterwards.
Edit: also, no I'm not a second edition hater lol
11
u/abadtime98 2d ago
I love the theme of blood rager. Easily my favorite class for pf and dnd
8
u/Thyrn- 2d ago
Still my favorite class in, I think, any rpg. Played Wrath of the Righteous video game and being able to double bloodline your bloodrager is just peak gaming lol
6
u/abadtime98 2d ago
Wotr is my only way to play pf group only wants to dnd. I loved the reformed fiend for my azata.
4
u/fascistIguana 2d ago
I forget how but my azanta bloodrager in wotr had something like 20 dr and 40 fast healing
3
u/abadtime98 1d ago
That's cool! I went the permnat haste and teamwork feats powers, felt nice not having to worry about magic restaince
-3
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
Bloodrager is wild magic barbarian if it didn't suck, wapriest is paladin but fun, slayer is ALSO ranger with a class fantasy.
The issue with pf1 is that they dropped peak and had nowhere to go but down afterwards.
-12
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
The issue with pf1 is that they dropped peak and had nowhere to go but down afterwards.
Fact. PF2 is just DND4 with less balance and more complexity.
14
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
I meant midway through pf1 lmao, pf2 is a well-designed game that isn't all that comparable to 4e.
Also, less balanced? There's barely anything unbalanced in the game lmao
14
-9
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
I played PF2 for four years, and by the end of it the DM was throwing encounters at us like
- At lv2: Three lv4s.
- At lv4: Three lv6s.
- At lv10: Five lv10s and a lv17.
- At lv20: Aside from instadeath terrain hazards and constant sanity rolls in a noneuclidean nightmare realm, fighting elite versions of the highest-level monsters wasn't enough, so he had to throw two or three of them at us at a time, and we still got through reletively unscathed. The final rush was an Elite Manifestation of Dahak followed by an Elite Dimari-Diji and Elite Tarrasque together.
And these were just single encounters during an adventuring day. With barely any investment, PF2's Treat Wounds makes balance a joke, because unless you outright kill someone hp isn't even a resource worth noting. The game was so broken that the DM would hand-waved any encounter that wasn't as skewed as the above ones, then ask if we felt like using spell slots to flavor the fight. I would typically toss one or two spells in the trash just to feel less bad about steamrolling every difficulty on PF2's encounter design chart.
Our Investigator was the MVP in both damage and healing categories, and by a large margin, despite me playing a Druid who pretty much only prepared Fireball and Heal while carrying around the useless party mascot on my head (Collar of Inconspicuousness).
15
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
You fought a level 17 creature at level 10 and it was easy? I call bullshit. Unless you were running a variant rule like proficiency without level, that absolutely did not happen.
11
u/A1inarin 2d ago
Just went to check numbers:
Investigator lv10 would have +5INT, expert attacks, +2 potency weapon, so ~+21 to attack.
Typical CR17 monsters have 39-41AC. So just to hit weakest of them you need to roll 18+ on every attack. Similar with other defences.
Can't see any way to combat be "easy" even with party vs solo monster, not counting five more enemies with party-level CR.-5
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
I didn’t say it was easy, but it was extremely boring. Miss, miss, miss, miss, a bit of damage, miss, miss, miss. Mostly fought it in a cloud while the wizard tossed a spellbook of debuffs at it to see what stuck.
Tedious, drawn-out battles of attrition are the only encounters that actually cause attrition in PF2. Spell slots are the only currency that matters, and cantrips are too stupid-good to actually use spell slots unless it’s to prevent a TPK. That’s why after several year+ campaigns we just stopped playing out any fight that couldn’t wipe us.
10
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
Were the enemies just not attacking you? A level 10 character generally has an AC around 28 (10+10+2+5+1). A level 17 creature has around a +31 to hit, which means they have a 5% chance to hit and a 95% chance to crit. Using the average damage numbers, that's around 63 damage for one action, every turn. This is ignoring any possible spells/abilities, or just hitting with MAP, which is probably optimal at that level disparity.
I do not believe a level 10 party was able to heal more than that every turn, especially given a per-character average HP of 108 (8+80+20). Especially not for long enough to kill a level 17 creature.
So to make this happen, the enemy would have to either just not be doing anything, or your party is ignoring foundational rules like the wounded condition (or, y'know, limited spell slots). Based on your complaints about how the clumsy condition is too hard for you to understand, I'd bet on the latter.
Either that or you're just lying lmao
→ More replies5
u/Undead_archer Forever DM 2d ago
What is sacred geometry and why do you hate it?
19
u/flowerafterflower 2d ago
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/
It's an infamous pf1e feat that either drags the game way the hell down while the player solves it, or they use one of the calculators available online to solve it instantly, in which case it's busted.
14
u/Undead_archer Forever DM 2d ago
Yeah, I can see why any reasonable dm wouldnt allow it, it basically requieres to stop the encounter so that one player solves a math puzzle.
10
u/Buntschatten 2d ago
Who the fuck thought that would be a good idea?
7
u/Val_Fortecazzo 2d ago
I think we've all been guilty of having novel and unique ideas that don't pan out as well as we think.
3
u/Chien_pequeno 1d ago
Some people at Paizo generally don't seem to understand the very nature of pen and paper roleplaying games
1
u/winter-ocean Thaumaturge 2d ago
Sacred geometry? Huh?
3
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
Horrible as in badly designed
1
u/winter-ocean Thaumaturge 2d ago
Sorry I didn't read the other comments and hadn't heard of it. I'm assuming it was a 1e thing based on the "hybrid class" stuff?
3
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
Not at all, it was a feat that let players amplify their spells.
3
u/winter-ocean Thaumaturge 2d ago
Bro wtf this would go so hard as a game mechanic in other games but I'm not waiting on someone to do all this math when they take their turn lol
So it's not a 1e thing then though?
6
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
It's a pathfinder 1e thing. Thankfully the second edition is pretty much a totally different game lol
As for the issues with the mechanic, the issue is that either the player in question wastes everyone's time (as you said), or they use an online calculator and just get a ridiculous amount of free metamagic.
2
u/winter-ocean Thaumaturge 2d ago
Yeah, I know, I'm just still a little lost on why you said "not at all."
1
u/Complaint-Efficient 2d ago
Oh wow, I did not get that lol. I meant "not at all" as in "this feat is unrelated to the hybrid classes"
→ More replies1
11
u/Stock-Side-6767 2d ago
I think PF1 was a decent upgrade over 3.5. PF2 is a different beast, much more refined, with a sturdier base.
-14
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
PF2 isn't more refined, there's just less of it. The existing mechanics are horribly clunky and unintuitive.
- "-2 Dexterity": If you don't know what this means, you can't even fill out your character sheet correctly, in either system. Works seamlessly and intuitively with all existing mechanics.
- "Clumsy 1": The same thing, except with more required text to memorize and little interaction with the rest of the system, a loose vestigial branch of a system that would need heavy pruning to become as simple as the d20 System.
I cannot take any claim of having a "sturdier base" seriously for any system that doesn't have skill points, or that uses classes without true multiclassing (Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 = Wizard 1 / Fighter 1), let alone a system lacking both. A sturdy base means being able to handle more, and these things are the basest of most basic tools to cover a wide variety of mechanics and narratives. One cannot build as sturdy a base as the d20 System without skill points, no matter how sturdy every other facet of the game is.
If 3e/PF1 is A-tier for the bredth and depth of what it can easily handle without homebrew -- the sturdiest base upon which to build -- the next runner-up out of all d20-based TRPGs is D-tier.
11
u/Thyrn- 2d ago
How am I supposed to find anyone who thinks Clumsy 1 is confusing seriously? Lol
-7
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 2d ago
I didn’t call it confusing, I pointed out the ways it’s an unnecessary added layer of complexity, and an example of how PF2 adds unnecessary added layers of complexity.
3
u/Telandria 20h ago edited 20h ago
or that uses classes without true multiclassing
So… you don’t take seriously most MMOs, Tabletop RPGs, and even D&D (4e or 5e) itself then?
Because most MMOs use classes and don’t allow multiclassing at all, 4e only had their weird-ass hybrid classing system, and in 5e it does actually make a difference which class you take first, because most classes don’t get all their proficiencies if it’s taken after 1st level. (Thus in 5e, Wizard 1 / Fighter 1 ≠ Fighter 1 / Wizard 1.)
Same goes for a whole ton of tabletop RPGs, actually. D&D & PF are definitely in the minority for allowing multiclassing as it is.
1
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 14h ago edited 14h ago
Yes. At least where TRPGs are concerned.
Unlike video games, where you start with no possibilities and have to code them, TRPGs start with limitless possibilities. Every rule is a tool to turn what’s in your head into dice and numbers you can use at the table, a nowhere-near-exhaustive list of what you can do. It’s never a question of whether you can, only of how. Can you become a god? Yes. Are there rules for it? If not, the answer is still yes, but the GM’s job is more difficult.
Class levels are no different. They are tools to turn the character concept in your head into dice and numbers, and a source of inspiration for new players. But to say taking a level of Fighter prevents you from taking a level of Wizard is as absurd as saying learning how to swing a sword well removes the physical chunk of your brain that would have previously allowed you to do research.
Such interactions have no place in anything that claims to be a roleplaying game, unless limited by the format. Video games have an excuse; tabletop games do not.
Multiclassing was the norm, originally. D&D 1-3 had it, and those defined the industry in their time. Non-multiclassing TRPGs are a mutant offspring of the video game generation who think it’s normal, not bygone constraint of a flawed medium.
6
u/Sir_lordtwiggles 1d ago
Eh, core pf had plenty of broken feats/classes/spells/systems even in the core rule book
Leadership, crafting, and wizards being notable offenders.
Sacred geometry was a big miss balance wise, but is a cool concept flavor wise. In pf1e they generally released content to support as much flavor as possible, with balance coming secondary. Given the literal hundreds of options to choose from, a few balance outliers is pretty reasonable
0
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 1d ago
Leadership, crafting, and wizards weren’t their original content.
2
u/Sir_lordtwiggles 1d ago
They had agency to change these though?
They added features to most classes, changed skill lists, reworked grappling, changed spells and spell lists.
Like wizards had multiple changes between 3.5 and pathfinder. Is the final result still very 3.5: yes, did it have to be: no.
1
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 1d ago
PF1 was written explicitly for the purpose of adding to the d20 System and being played with all 3e/3.5 content. Says so twice over in the front of the Core Rulebook, and there’s an official conversion guide that makes it RAW in addition to RAI.
Leadership, crafting, and wizards would be legal whether they reprint it or not. You can swap your Arcane Bond for Abrupt Jaunt with the designers’ blessing.
2
u/Sir_lordtwiggles 1d ago
Leadership, crafting, and wizards would be legal whether they reprint it or not.
Thats a reason to more heavily rework the wizard or other systems, if someone didn't like them they could stick to the 3.5 version. Like the sorcerer had bigger changes, or paladins.
Paizo chooses what goes in their book, they could have a 3.5 compatible system with a balanced leadership feat. They could have 3.5 compatible with a less abusable crafting system. They published broken stuff in the CRB. Thats fine, but its also the facts.
3.5 compatibility doesn't mean you can't do bigger reworks of things. They reworked the combat maneuver system nearly completely for example.
Edit: also consider how many changes the fighter got throughout it's PF1e lifecycle.
0
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 1d ago
PF1 was addressing “dead levels”, a known issue with 3e where you can gain a level but not any interesting abilities. WotC acknowledged this as a flaw and patched it in an online article, but their attempt wasn’t great.
Most of the CRB was polishing 3e, not changing it. The goal wasn’t to change it, it was to make it run smoother. The whole point of PF1 was because people loved 3e and wanted to keep playing it, but Hasbro of the Coast was ending the tradition of building on a good thing so Paizo took up the mantle.
1
u/Sir_lordtwiggles 1d ago
Yes, all of these are motivations behind initial publishing.
That doesn't change the fact that paizo got to choose what went in the book they published and sold. Paizo chose to change some systems a lot. Paizo chose to change some systems a little.
What that means is Paizo gets to take the responsibility for the things that appeared in a book they wrote and sold. WotC didn't make them print the busted version of leadership in the CRB, Paizo chose to. WotC didn't make them print the exploitable crafting rules in the CRB, Paizo chose to. WotC didn't make them print 3.5's combat maneuver system, Paizo chose to rewrite it.
Paizo had full agency in deciding what to change. Paizo has full responsibility for the CRB they published and distributed.
1
u/TheThoughtmaker Essential NPC 1d ago
If they didn’t print Leadership, I still would have taken 3e Leadership on my Master Enchanter / Mindbender with Mindsight, and it still wouldn’t have caused any problems.
I haven’t addressed your claims that Leadership is broken yet, but I’ve seen it used plenty without doing much more than being a roleplay/flavor feat. The people are just people, not soldiers, not slaves. The most powerful thing they can do is increase the effect of capital spent during downtime to a maximum of 50%, and only in a settlement with sufficient existing followers.
1
u/Sir_lordtwiggles 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ok, and then you would have had a point that paizo didn't publish that broken feat in the crb
As far as leadership being broken, come on. Basically any caster cohort can immensely increase the power of the part via battlefield control, buff, or summon spells. Even an purely out of combat caster can be a crazy force multiplier due to how many problems can just be solved with PF1e's magic and the long durations of many buff spells.
This is also ignoring the power of a crafter cohorts, which can double the party's wealth
Any ranged martial cohort is also gonna be doing a fair bit of consistent damage in combats, likely better than any competing feat not named power attack.
Even if you don't get a caster, you are gonna get a wider skill selection for your character (1 skill point per level is a feat on it's own). You are basically spending a feat to get multiple feat's worth of payoff in both combat, exploration, and social encounters, on top of getting action economy.
The absolute worst cohort you could get is a melee martial cohort and then its still a decent hp buffer with some skill points and carry capacity.
And then you get abstract RP benefits from the followers
Is it as disruptive to the flow of the game as sacred geometry? No probably not, other than the headache it may cause for the GM.
Is it stronger than sacred geometry? IMO arguably but probably not, just because there isn't a single class in the game that Leadership doesn't significantly boost the power of.
Free metamagic is incredibly strong, but it's prime abusers are god wizards/arcanists that arguably can handle basically anything you throw at them even without sacred geometry
But not being the strongest feat in the game doesn't mean it isn't incredibly broken and ripe for abuse.
Edit: also adding that even melee martial cohorts can do some fancy positioning to deny enemies full attacks, which is huge as the party gets into high levels.
2
16
u/Undead_archer Forever DM 2d ago
As long as it isn't Neveria.........
8
u/Jaijoles 2d ago
A fatal setting for sure. Not somewhere I’d want to be.
2
u/whereballoonsgo 2d ago
I was able to put together what they were hinting at from your comment, but now I'm very concerned why either of you know enough about the forbidden ttrpg to know the name of the world its set in...
3
2
14
u/Jafroboy 2d ago
I remember joining a server with so much convoluted 5e homebrew bloat I WISH they'd just used a different system!
12
u/followeroftheprince Rules Lawyer 2d ago
Throwing in some very heavy homebrew I would imagine. Heck even needing special character sheets
23
u/KhaosElement 2d ago
So happy my players love exploring other TRRPGs. Can't imagine being like most of the people here and being staunchly against anything but this one game.
4
u/Wholesome_Scroll 1d ago
Id love to explore other systems, but my players are like “I just learned how to play D&D and it was hard and confusing at times. I don’t have the mental energy to try to learn something new.”
They’re people who haven’t done any TTRPGs prior to 5E, so I understand.
I’m still trying to convince my wife to try Lancer, though.
2
4
u/Lithl 2d ago
Me, currently running a Skull & Shackles 5e conversion: 👀
4
u/knight_of_solamnia Forever DM 2d ago
Regardless of which system you prefer pathfinder definitely has better adventure design than 5e.
0
3
3
3
u/GlaiveGary Paladin 1d ago
Maybe I'm a weirdo but i couldn't imagine actually using the standard DND/Pathfinder world. Wacky homebrew nonsense or plagiarize a book. Tales of Kaimere pls
2
u/rinickolous1 1d ago
"So we're using a homebrew 3d6 roll low system, and my homebrew world is called Yrth.
And I got rid of classes because they limit your choices too much. They still sort of exist but you're not limited by them.
And I re-did the core stats so there's 4 instead of 6.
And it's all point buy. Actually, you point buy your abilities and skills too.
And I got rid of all the dice except the d6."
2
u/StripedTabaxi Old School Grognard 1d ago
Golarion - Forgotten Realms
Me: "Both are same pictures."
1
1
u/freekoout Forever DM 1d ago
Nah, everyone knows Golarion disappeared hundreds of years ago during the gap.
1
70
u/Acrobatic-Tooth-3873 2d ago
"so I've got a homebrew three action system instead of actions and bonus actions"